Compensation for injuries must reflect severity and long-term impact, ensuring just and reasonable support for the injured party.

JUDGMENT :

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1327/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant in MACA. No.2639/2017. The 3^rd respondent in the OP is the appellant in MACA.No.1477/2017. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.9.2011. According to the petitioner, on 20.09.2011 at about 10.45 a.m., he was riding pillion on a motor cycle ridden by the 1^st respondent in a reckless manner and in exorbitant speed and when it reached near a railway over bridge, the rider applied sudden break so that he lost control over the motor cycle and hit against a car bearing registration No. KL-04V-1574. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the rider, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.80,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A49, B1, and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.62,80,800/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA.2639/2017 and the 3^rd Respondent preferred MACA.No.1477/2017.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri. A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Mathews Jacob the learned Senior Standing Counsel as instructed by Sri.Jacob Mathew for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The petitioner was in Military Service as a Naik at the time of the accident. In the accident, the petitioner sustained very serious injuries, as shown below:

“(1) severe traumatic brain injury (2) bi-frontal hemorhagic contusion (3) pneumnocephalus (4) fracture frontal bone (5) fracture left occipital bone (6) left PCA infarct act. He underwent emergency bi-frontal decompressive craniotomy, right FRI and temporal lobectomy and expansive duropalsty under general anesthesia on 21.09.2011. During the post operative period, he was ventilated for four days. Tracheostomy was done on 25.09.2011. He was discharged with advise to continue the medicine for two weeks and to attend for review after two weeks. He was further advised to attend local hospital for further management and to do LP drainage for Pseudomeningocoele.”

11. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 303 days in 18 spells and in the meantime he had undergone 8 major surgeries. As per Exhibit A28 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 25% permanent physical disability. However, as per Exhibit A41, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, military hospital, his functional disability was assessed as 60%.

12. The petitioner was in Military Service as a Naik at the time of the accident. Based on his merit he got selection as a NSG commando and served there as a commando for a period of five years when he met with the accident. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident, he was d